Bush prefers chasing after solutions to finding them

It occurred to me, as I was watching his State of the Union speech the other night, that the only thing I know for sure about George W. Bush is that he likes his enemies on the run.

Actually, I've known this for some time. The first time I heard him say it was in a televised press conference on Oct. 12, 2001, just a month after 9/11. "It may take a year or two," Bush said, referring to capturing Osama bin Laden and his terrorist cohorts in Afghanistan, "but we've got them on the run."

And I guess it was true because in a speech in May 2003, he said it again: "Al Qaeda is on the run."

And then again in March 2005, in a speech at National Defense University. "We will keep the terrorists on the run," Bush vowed, "until they have nowhere left to hide."

Then one more time at a press conference on Oct. 25, 2006: "Al Qaeda is on the run."

And in case doubt remained in any of our minds, he reiterated it Monday night in his last State of the Union address: "Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq," he said, "and this enemy will be defeated."

I suppose it's reassuring that our president has his enemies -- our enemies -- where he wants them. I'm a little less reassured by the possibility that Bush might be more comfortable with his enemies on the run than with catching them.

I raise this possibility based on his comments about bin Laden, who I would assume to be in the top tier of the enemies we have on the run. Yet, although once a very high priority, capturing bin Laden after a while didn't seem to matter to Bush one way or the other.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden," said Bush two days after 9/11. "It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him."

By the end of December that year, Bush had downshifted his goal to -- you guessed it -- keeping bin Laden on the run. "A while ago, I said to the American people our objective is more than bin Laden," Bush told the press travel pool at his Texas ranch on Dec. 28. "But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run."

Less than three months later, bin Laden seemed to have slipped further down the checklist. "I don't know where bin Laden is," said Bush on March 13, 2002. "I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."

Lest you think I'm hung up only on bin Laden, I have to say I'm also unsure what the president is chasing on a number of other fronts.

For instance, he said the other night he wants full and complete care for veterans. Good. So do I. But where was that sentiment a few years ago when his administration pushed Rep. Chris Smith (R- 4th Dist.) out of his longtime position as head of the House Commit tee on Veterans Affairs because Smith dared to deliver the bad news that Bush's Iraq war would mean a major increase in the cost of veterans' care?

Bush said Monday he wants an international agreement to clean up the environment and reduce greenhouse emissions. But this same Bush has made it clear for years that any environmental accord must be acceptable to American business.

The president says he wants affordable health care for all Americans. But the nation is no closer to affordable health care now than when he took office. Recently he opposed an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover millions of uninsured children.

He says he wants to solve the immigration crisis. But it's on his watch that the immigration crisis has exploded.

He says he wants Congress to stop expensive "earmark" spend ing. But in his first six years in office, when his party controlled Congress, he didn't veto a single spend ing bill.

So he's chasing a lot of the right problems. He just doesn't seem to have a plan for catching and solv ing them, which is why I wonder if maybe he's more comfortable just having them "on the run."